Jose Chavez v. James Ziglar, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12555

Chavezs operated a shuttle between Sasabe and Tucson, stopping near the border from 1995 to 2001.
They alleged Border Patrol roving stops violated their Fourth Amendment rights and named supervisors who allegedly directed or approved the stops.
The complaint described stops based on appearance, profanity used by agents, and denial of consent for searches, with passengers sometimes treated harshly.
Supervisors named included Ziglar, Aguilar, Hunt, Obregon, Felix Chavez, and Campbell; Hunt allegedly personally stopped them twice.
District court dismissed the supervisory claims; the Ninth Circuit reinstated them, concluding the complaint plausibly alleged personal involvement and a policy of roving patrols.
After Iqbal, the district court denied relief; the panel analyzed whether supervisory immunity and plausibility support liability for each supervisor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether supervisory liability under the Fourth Amendment requires a clearly unlawful act by the supervisor.	Chavez argues supervisors knowingly ordered/condoned stops.	Defendants argue no clearly unlawful conduct by supervisors; Iqbal limits claims against supervisors.	Liability requires clearly unlawful conduct by a supervisor; most defendants fail this standard.
Whether Hunt is liable for his own direct participation in the stops.	Hunt personally stopped the shuttle and affected passengers.	Hunt acted as a supervisor but not necessarily with unlawful purpose.	Hunt plausibly violated the Fourth Amendment through direct participation; not shielded by immunity.
Do other supervisory defendants state a plausible Fourth Amendment claim against them?	Supervisors approved, reviewed, or tolerated roving patrols and ignored complaints.	Allegations are insufficient to show clearly unlawful conduct by these supervisors.	Claims against Ziglar, Aguilar, Obregon, Felix Chavez, and Campbell are not plausibly clearly unlawful.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards; discrimination claims require plausible facts; supervisory liability requires individual actions)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity standard; factual inquiry into clearly established law)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (facts must be plausible, not mere conclusory allegations)
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (roving border stops require reasonable suspicion; appearance alone not enough)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (no subjective motivation required for Fourth Amendment analysis; objective reasonableness standard)
Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630 (1991) (supervisor liability under state-created danger/line; pre-Iqbal standard cited)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (final decision on qualified immunity when issue turns on law)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (unlawful searches cannot be legitimized by later discoveries)
Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 675 F.3d 1213 (2012) (pre-Iqbal supervisory liability standard discussed as context)